Tài liệu HARBORING POLLUTION: Strategies to Clean Up U.S. Ports doc

AIR POLLUTION AND HEALTH IMPACTS FROM PORT OPERATIONSThe diesel engines at ports, which power ships, trucks, trains, and cargo-handlingequipment, create vast amounts of air pollution tha

HARBORING POLLUTION

Strategies to Clean Up U.S Ports

Authors

Diane BaileyThomas PlenysGina M Solomon, M.D., M.P.H

Todd R Campbell, M.E.M., M.P.P

Gail Ruderman FeuerJulie Masters

ABOUT NRDCThe Natural Resources Defense Council is a national, nonprofit environmentalorganization with more than 1 million members and online activists Since 1970,our lawyers, scientists, and other environmental specialists have worked to protectthe world’s natural resources, public health, and the environment NRDC has offices

in New York City, Washington, D.C., Los Angeles, and San Francisco Visit us on theWorld Wide Web at www.nrdc.org or contact us at 40 West 20th Street, New York, NY

10011, 212-727-2700

ABOUT THE COALITION FOR CLEAN AIRThe Coalition for Clean Air is a nonprofit organization dedicated to restoring cleanhealthful air to California by advocating responsible public health policy, providingtechnical and educational expertise, and promoting broad-based community involve-ment The Coalition for Clean Air has offices in Los Angeles and Sacramento, CA.For more information about the coalition’s work, visit www.coalitionforcleanair.org

or contact us at 523 West 6th Street, 10th Floor, Los Angeles, CA 90014, 213-630-1192

ACKNOWLEDGMENTSThe Natural Resources Defense Council would like to acknowledge The William C.Bannerman Foundation, David Bohnett Foundation, Entertainment IndustryFoundation, Environment Now, Richard & Rhoda Goldman Fund, and The RoseFoundation For Communities & The Environment for their generous support TheCoalition for Clean Air would like to acknowledge Environment Now andEntertainment Industry Foundation for their generous support

The authors also would like to thank the following people for their contribution

to this report: David Beckman, Erika Brekke, Tim Carmichael, Erica Chan, MarkGold, Vern Hall, Rich Kassel, Jon Leonard, Teri Shore, Mitzy Taggart, and Kate Wing

Copyright 2004 by the Natural Resources Defense Council

For additional copies of this report, send $7.50 plus $3.95 shipping and handling toNRDC Reports Department, 40 West 20th Street, New York, NY 10011 California res-idents must add 7.5% sales tax Please make checks payable to NRDC in U.S dollars

Abbreviations iv

Appendix A: Port Land-Use Efficiency Methodology

Appendix B: Additional Technical Information for Mitigation Measures

Appendix C: Model Aquatic Resources Protection Program for Shipping Ports

Appendix D: International Rules and Treaties

The Dirty Truth About U.S Ports

Environmental report cards for ports in 10 U.S cities, issued by NRDC

and the Coalition for Clean Air in March 2004, are also available online at

http://www.nrdc.org/air/pollution/ports/contents.asp and

http://www.coalitionforcleanair.org/portreports.

CONTENTS

HARBORING POLLUTION

Strategies to Clean Up U.S Ports

August 2004

AAPA American Association of Port Authorities

PM10 particulate matter less than or equal to 10 microns in size

SCAQMD South Coast Air Quality Management District

TBT tributyltin

organic gases, as some regulatory agencies commonly use)

pollutant per engine energy output)

unit energy output)

unit energy output)

Strategies to Clean Up U.S Ports

Marine ports in the United States are major hubs of economic activity and majorsources of pollution Enormous ships with engines running on the dirtiest fuelavailable, thousands of diesel truck visits per day, mile-long diesel locomotiveshauling cargo and other polluting equipment, and activities at marine ports cause anarray of environmental impacts that can seriously affect local communities and theenvironment These impacts range from increased risk of illness, such as respiratorydisease or cancer, to increases in regional smog, degradation of water quality, and theblight of local communities and public lands

Most major ports in the United States are undergoing expansions to accommodateeven greater cargo volumes The growth of international trade has resulted incorresponding rapid growth in the amount of goods being shipped by sea Despitethe enormous growth within the marine shipping sector, most pollution preventionefforts at the local, state, and federal level have focused on other pollution sources,while the environmental impacts of ports have grown

Marine ports are now among the most poorly regulated sources of pollution in theUnited States The result is that most U.S ports are heavy polluters, releasing largelyunchecked quantities of health-endangering air and water pollution, causing noiseand light pollution that disrupts nearby communities, and harming marine habitats

In March 2004, NRDC and CCA issued report cards for the 10 largest U.S ports

on their efforts to control pollution—or lack of efforts to control pollution In theshort time since the grades were issued, steps to reduce port pollution have alreadybeen made For example, the first container ship in the world plugged into shoresidepower at the Port of Los Angeles This report discusses solutions to port pollutionproblems and provides additional information on the health and environmentalimpacts of port operations; an overview of policies governing U.S marine ports;and detailed analysis and technical recommendations to port operators, regulatoryagencies, and community-based environmental and health advocates

AIR POLLUTION AND HEALTH IMPACTS FROM PORT OPERATIONSThe diesel engines at ports, which power ships, trucks, trains, and cargo-handlingequipment, create vast amounts of air pollution that affect the health of workers andpeople living in nearby communities and contribute significantly to regional airpollution More than 30 human epidemiological studies have found that dieselexhaust increases cancer risks, and a 2000 California study found that diesel exhaust

is responsible for 70 percent of the cancer risk from air pollution.1More recent studieshave linked diesel exhaust with asthma.2Major air pollutants from diesel engines atports that can affect human health include particulate matter (PM), volatile organiccompounds (VOCs), nitrogen oxides (NOx), and sulfur oxides (SOx)

The health effects of pollution from ports may include asthma, other respiratorydiseases, cardiovascular disease, lung cancer, and premature death In children, thesepollutants have been linked with asthma and bronchitis, and high levels of the pol-lutants have been associated with increases in school absenteeism and emergencyroom visits In fact, numerous studies have shown that children living near busy

diesel trucking routes are more likely to suffer from decreased lung function, wheezing,

bronchitis, and allergies.3,4,5

Many major ports operate virtually next door to residential neighborhoods, schools,

and playgrounds Due to close proximity to ports, nearby communities face

extraordi-narily high health risks from associated air pollution Many of these areas are

low-income communities of color, a fact that raises environmental justice concerns

Although cars, power plants, and refineries are all large and well-known sources

of pollution, Figure E-1 demonstrates that the air pollution from ports rivals or

exceeds these sources In the Los Angeles area, oceangoing ships, harbor tugs, and

commercial boats such as passenger ferries emit many times more smog-forming

pollutants than all power plants in the Southern California region combined.6And

the latest growth forecasts predicting trade to approximately triple by 2025 in the

Los Angeles region mean that smog-forming emissions and diesel particulate

pollu-tion could severely increase in an area already burdened by the worst air quality in the

nation The larger contribution of port sources to air pollution can be attributed to the

fact that pollution from cars, power plants, and refineries is somewhat controlled,

whereas port pollution has continued to grow with almost no regulatory control

Figure E-1 uses the Port of Los Angeles and the Port of New York and New Jersey

as examples because they are the largest ports on the West Coast and East Coast,

respectively The Port of Virginia is comparable in size to other large ports such

as Savannah, Houston, and Seattle Figure E-1 also highlights emissions of NOx

and PM, because these pollutants are associated with very severe health impacts.7

Despite very conservative assumptions used to calculate port emissions, ports

out-pollute some of the largest sources of harmful emissions, raising the question, Should

ports be regulated like other large sources of pollution?

Strategies to Clean Up U.S Ports

Sources: Seapor ts of the Americas, American Association of Por t Authorities Director y (2002): 127 U.S EPA, National Emission Trends, Average Annual Emissions, All Criteria Pollutants, 1970–2001, August 13, 2003 Energy Information Administration, Petroleum Supply Annual 1982, Volume 1, DOE/EIA- 0340(82)/1 (June 1983, Washington, DC), pp 97-103 and Petroleum Supply Annual 2000, Volume 1, DOE/EIA-0340(2000)/1 (Washington, DC, June 2001), Table 40 Energy Information Administration, Form EIA-861, “Annual Electric Utility Repor t.” As posted at www.eia.doe.gov/cneaf/electricity/public/t01p01.txt, U.S Dept of Transpor tation, Federal Highway Administration, 2000 Highway Statistics, State Motor-Vehicle Registrations.

NY/NJ Por t of Virginia One-Half Million Cars

Average Power Plant

Por t of Los Angeles Por t of

NY/NJ Por t of Virginia One-Half Million Cars

Average Power Plant

Average Refiner y

PM 10 EMISSIONS

FIGURE E-1

Nitrogen Oxides (NOx) and Particulate Matter (PM 10 ) Pollution from Ports Compared to Refineries, Power Plants, and Cars

WATER POLLUTION FROM PORT OPERATIONS

Port operations can cause significant damage to water quality—and subsequently

to marine life and ecosystems, as well as human health These effects may includebacterial and viral contamination of commercial fish and shellfish, depletion ofoxygen in water, and bioaccumulation of certain toxins in fish.8Major water qualityconcerns at ports include wastewater and leaking of toxic substances from ships,stormwater runoff, and dredging

LAND USE PROBLEMS AT PORTS

The highly industrialized operations at ports are often in close proximity to residentialareas, creating nuisances and hazards for nearby communities Ports have severalavailable options to avoid developing new terminals near residential areas Theycan develop property previously used in an industrial capacity, or they can increaseefficiency of land use at existing terminals The land use patterns at U.S ports suggestmuch room for efficiency improvements Of the 10 largest U.S ports, even those thatare most efficient in terms of land use—Long Beach and Houston—are four times lessefficient than the Port of Singapore, a model of land use efficiency

PORT COMMUNITY RELATIONS

Ports can be bad neighbors In addition to the air and water pollution they create,they can cause traffic jams and can be loud, ugly, and brightly lit at night Theseimpacts range from simple annoyances to serious negative health effects For

example, noise pollution has been linked to hearing impairment, hypertension(high blood pressure), sleep deprivation, reduced performance, and even aggressivebehavior.9At ports bordering residential neighborhoods, bright lights at night and theflashing lights of straddle carriers and forklifts can affect nearby residents, disruptingbiological rhythms and causing stress and irritation.10,11

Ports can also be bad neighbors by ignoring residents of the communities livingnext door, or making little or no effort to solicit community input into operationaldecisions that will directly affect the life of the community and its residents ManyU.S ports have developed decidedly hostile relations with their neighbors, not onlybecause of the pollution the ports produce but also because they have consistentlyignored residents of nearby communities, refusing sometimes even to share criticalinformation about possible effects of port operations

RECOMMENDATIONS

The fact-finding for this report revealed untenable situations in many communitiesnear ports: freeways and neighborhood streets overloaded with trucks, homes coatedwith soot, soaring asthma rates, containers stacked high enough to create significantneighborhood blight, piles of dredged sludge forming toxic islands, and primemarine animal habitats gouged by channeling The following are recommendations

to port operators and policymakers on how to clean up port operations The mendations, and the problems they seek to address, are described in greater detailthroughout the report.

recom-Recommendations for Ports

Ports must commit to protect local communities and the environment, not onlyduring expansions but also during regular operations Following are suggestedmeasures used by select ports worldwide to successfully decrease impacts on localcommunities and ecosystems These measures should be employed at all containerports to clean up their operations, and local activists should be aware of these options

to advocate for their implementation Ports should consider the negotiation of new

or modified leases as an important opportunity to require a combination of the gation measures, such as the use of cleaner fuels and equipment

miti-Marine vessels

Clean up harbor craft, such as tugboats, through engine repower and retrofit programs

Limit idling of oceangoing vessels and tugboats by providing electric power at docksand requiring ships and tugboats to “plug in” to shoreside power while at berth

Require ships, including oceangoing vessels, to use the cleanest grade of diesel fuelpossible, with a sulfur content of 15 to 2,000 parts per million

Where possible, create incentives for, or otherwise promote the use of, emissioncontrols on oceangoing vessels

Switch to cleaner diesel fuels, such as low-sulfur fuel with sulfur content less than

15 parts per million and diesel emulsions

On-road trucks

Create incentive programs that encourage fleet modernization, the retirement ofolder trucks, and their replacement with modern lower-emitting trucks

Offer incentives for the installation of pollution controls, including DPFs with LNCs

or, if not feasible, with DOCs

Make cleaner fuels, such as diesel emulsions or low-sulfur diesel, available tooff-site trucks

Minimize truck idling by enforcing idling limits or by installing idle shutoff controls

Locomotives

Repower or replace all switching locomotives that do not meet the EnvironmentalProtection Agency (EPA) Tier 0 Standards with electric-hybrid or alternative-fuel engines

Install engine emissions controls where possible

Strategies to Clean Up U.S Ports

Require automatic engine shutoff controls to minimize unnecessary idling.

Commit to using cleaner fuels, such as on-road grade diesel

Carefully document and analyze potential water pollution problems, water qualitymonitoring, and best management practices for the prevention, control, and treat-ment of stormwater runoff

Other measures recommended include water quality programs; traffic tion; land use, light, and noise abatement; improved aesthetics; and other terminaldesign features

mitiga-Recommendations for Policymakers

In addition to the mitigation measures ports should implement on their own, anumber of policy and regulatory actions are needed to protect human health andthe environment from the large, industrial, and high-polluting operations at marineports Ordinarily, such activities would be subject to stringent regulation, but over-sight of ports falls between the regulatory cracks, defeated by confusion over

jurisdictional authority and the ongoing efforts of a strong industry lobby While apatchwork of international, federal, state, and local rules apply to various pollutionsources at ports, most are weak and poorly enforced

Marine vessels

The U.S government should officially ratify MARPOL Annexes IV and VI (an tional treaty that prevents sewage pollution and sets emissions standards for ships) andthe Antifouling Systems Convention, which bans toxic chemical coatings on ship hulls

interna-
The EPA should expedite efforts to establish the entire East, West, and Gulf coasts

as control zones subject to stricter emission standards under MARPOL VI

The EPA should implement a graduated harbor fee system similar to a program inSweden that requires more polluting ships to pay higher fees upon entering a port

The EPA should expedite implementation of stricter emission standards for allmarine vessels within two years

States and regional authorities should create financial incentives for the cleanupand replacement of older marine vessels

States and regional authorities should require ships to plug in to shoreside powerwhile docked

States should require that ships use low-sulfur diesel while in coastal waters and atberth (until electric power is made available) In the absence of state action, regionalauthorities should require this

Regional authorities should monitor and enforce ship speed limits

On-road and nonroad vehicles

The EPA must follow through with full implementation of its 2007 emissionsstandards for on-road, heavy-duty trucks; its 2008 emissions standards for nonroadvehicles and equipment; and the related lower sulfur diesel requirements

The EPA should adopt a series of diesel retrofit rules, similar to those proposed

in the California risk reduction program, to establish a cleanup schedule for existingpolluting diesel engines In the absence of federal action, states or local authoritiesshould adopt these programs

The EPA should set uniform federal idling limits for all diesel engines In theabsence of federal action, states or local authorities should require idling limits

States should provide incentive programs to reduce pollution from heavy-dutydiesel engines, similar to programs such as California’s Carl Moyer and GatewayCities; in the absence of state action, regional authorities should sponsor such programs

Regional authorities should adopt fleet rules to clean up and require new, cleanerpurchases of all heavy-duty engines, similar to those in place in the Los Angeles area

Inland cargo transport

The EPA and individual states should consider fees on each container entering

a port to provide funding for mitigation of the environmental impacts of movingthose containers

The U.S government should adopt and support a sustainable transportationsystem program, similar to the European Union program, facilitating the shift ofcargo transport from more polluting modes (such as trucking) to cleaner locomotiveand barge transport

Locomotives

The EPA should implement stricter emission standards for locomotives withinone year

States and regional authorities should also create financial incentives for the

cleanup and replacement of older locomotives

States should negotiate memorandums of understanding that create incentivesfor cleaner locomotives In the absence of state action, regional authorities shouldpursue this

should work together to jointly shoulder the neglected responsibility to neighboringcommunities and their surrounding environment.

Stormwater

The EPA should issue effluent guidelines to require a general baseline level ofpollutant reduction for port facilities, or for those pollutants typically found inport runoff

States should ensure that anti-degradation provisions of federal and state law arefully implemented in stormwater permits

States should give special attention to the development of total maximum dailyloads (TMDLs) for impaired waters around many ports

Local governments should prioritize port facilities when designing inspectionprotocols in conjunction with local regulatory programs and implementation ofmunicipal stormwater permits

Oil spills

Congress should pass the Stop Oil Spills Act (H.R 880) to accelerate the phase-in

of double-hulled tankers in U.S waters by 2007

Regional authorities should require ports to take steps to ensure that oil pollutiondoes not become part of runoff and that portwide oil-recycling programs are in place

Ballast water

The U.S Coast Guard should finalize mandatory national ballast water regulations

as quickly as possible, or no later than the expected summer 2004 completion date

States should adopt ballast water regulations, similar to those in place in Californiaand Washington, that ensure a 200-mile buffer from the U.S coast

Waste discharge

The EPA must consider more stringent requirements on the dumping of wastescontaining oxygen-depleting nitrogen and phosphorous, as well as persistent toxiccompounds that continue to threaten marine life

CONCLUSION

Based on our previous survey of 10 of the largest container ports in the United States,not nearly enough is being done to alleviate the severe impacts of the highly pollutingshipping industry despite real and significant environmental and health impactsassociated with marine port operations Ports should take internal measures toreduce pollution caused by port activities Likewise, regulatory agencies at thefederal, state, and local level must provide long overdue safeguards Further, if portexpansions are to continue, all projects must be mitigated to the maximum extentpossible, efficiency must be improved, and current operations should be cleaned up

H EALTH AND

The economic benefits of marine ports are typically accompanied by

signifi-cant environmental and public health problems Hundreds of enormous

diesel-powered ships, millions of diesel trucks, and other polluting equipment

and activities at modern seaports cause an array of environmental degradations

that, when uncontrolled, can severely affect the health and quality of life of

residential communities, as well as marine and land-based wildlife throughout

a region Among the environmental harm caused by pollution from marine

ports are a significant increase in regional smog, contamination of nearby

bodies of water, introduction of destructive invasive species, increased cancer

and other health risks for nearby residents, and blight on local communities and

public lands

The specific sources of these various environmental hazards from marine

ports are many They include:

Car and truck traffic, including thousands of diesel trucks servicing each of the

major ports every day

Rail and commercial ship traffic

Chemical storage and handling

Fueling of ships, trucks, trains, and cargo-handling equipment

Liquid discharges from ships

Painting and paint stripping

Ship breaking (dismantling)

Maintenance and repair of roads, rails, grounds, vessels, vehicles, and equipment

Channel dredging1

Even though marine ports are often associated with heavy industrial activities, they

are usually situated in or very near residential communities or environmentally sensitive

estuaries A variety of negative environmental consequences commonly result, including

CHAPTER 1

HARBORING POLLUTION

Strategies to Clean Up U.S Ports

August 2004

Air pollution from port operations and construction activities, including smog andtoxic particulate pollution

Loss or degradation of wetlands; destruction of fisheries

Loss of habitat of local endangered species

Contamination from wastewater and stormwater discharges

Severe traffic congestion

Noise and light pollution

Loss of cultural resources

Contamination of soil and water from leaking storage tanks and pipelines

Air releases from chemical storage

Solid and hazardous waste generation and soil runoff and erosion2

MARINE PORTS ARE MAJOR SOURCES OF AIR POLLUTIONMany of the dirtiest sources of air pollution are concentrated at marine ports, oftencreating a veil of brown haze that carries with it all of the severe health effects ofindustrial and urban air pollution For example, marine ports attract hundreds ofenormous oceangoing ships and tugboats, which burn the dirtiest grade of diesel fuelavailable Cargo is moved around shipyards by fleets of highly polluting heavy-dutyequipment, and it is delivered and taken away from those shipyards by millions ofheavy-duty container trucks and locomotives, many of which were built well beforeemission standards were even considered These and other port-related sourcescombine to rival the worst pollution from power plants and refineries, accountingfor large percentages of the statewide air pollution in major shipping states

Air pollutants emitted from port-related activities adversely affect the health ofport workers, as well as residents of nearby communities, and contribute significantly

to regional air pollution problems The major air pollutants related to port activitiesthat can affect human health include nitrogen oxides (NOx), sulfur oxides (SOx),ozone (O3) particulate matter (PM), diesel exhaust, and volatile organic compounds(VOCs) Other pollutants from port operations—such as carbon monoxide (CO),formaldehyde, heavy metals, dioxins, and even pesticides used to fumigate produce—can also be problematic

Health Effects from Diesel Exhaust

The vast majority of equipment employed at ports today runs on diesel fuel, emitting

a toxic brew of particles, vapors, and gases, including NOx, VOCs, and SOx.3Inaddition to the pollutants just listed, diesel exhaust contains an estimated total

of 450 different compounds, about 40 of which are listed by the California mental Protection Agency as toxic air contaminants with negative effects on healthand the environment.4

diesel exhaust can irritate the nose, sinuses, throat, and eyes and damage the lowerairways Studies of people exposed to diesel exhaust have documented eye and nose

is delivered and taken

away from those

ship-yards by millions of

heavy-duty container

trucks and locomotives,

many of which were

built well before

emission standards

were even considered.

irritation, bronchitis, cough and phlegm, wheezing, and deterioration in the ability to

take full, deep breaths.5,6New important scientific evidence suggests that diesel

exhaust may help to cause the initiation of allergies and worsen existing allergies 7,8

Exposure to diesel exhaust also causes elevated levels of immune cells in the airways,

indicating that the body senses a hazardous substance.9

studies have found that diesel exhaust increases cancer risk One major study

examined the effects of diesel exhaust exposure on more than 56,000 railroad

workers over a 22-year period.10Calculations based on this study showed that

chronic exposure to just one microgram per cubic meter of diesel exhaust

particles—roughly the level found in many suburban areas far distant from

trucking routes or ports—would result in an additional risk of 1.3 to 15 cancer cases

per 10,000 exposed individuals Using that finding as a benchmark, the South Coast

Air Quality Management District in California calculated that fully 71 percent

of the cancer risk due to air pollution in the South Coast Air Basin is attributable

to diesel particulate pollution Agencies in a number of other areas have reached

similar conclusions.11

Dozens of studies have shown that long-term exposure to diesel exhaust

signifi-cantly increases the risk of lung cancer.12In fact, workers exposed to diesel exhaust

over the long term generally face an increase in lung cancer risks of between 50 and

300 percent.13Studies have also reported links between diesel exposure and other

cancers, including cancer of the bladder, kidney, stomach, blood (including multiple

myeloma, leukemia, Hodgkin’s disease, and non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma), the oral

cavity, pharynx, and larynx.14A number of federal and international agencies have

listed diesel exhaust as a probable or likely lung carcinogen, and in 1990, the state of

California listed diesel exhaust as a known cause of lung cancer.15

(PM) pollution ranges from the coarse dust kicked up from dirt roads to the very

tiny sooty particles formed when wood, gasoline, or diesel are burned At ports,

construction and daily operations often create coarse PM, but it is the tiniest PM

that causes the greatest health hazards Much of this “fine” PM—so small that it

is invisible to the eye—comes from diesel engine exhaust Less than 1/20th the

diameter of a human hair, fine PM can travel deep into the lungs, landing in the

delicate air sacs where oxygen exchange normally occurs.16Numerous studies

have found that these fine particles impair lung function, aggravate such

respiratory illnesses as bronchitis and emphysema, and are associated with

pre-mature deaths.17

Dozens of studies link airborne fine particle concentrations to increased hospital

admissions for asthma attacks, chronic obstructive lung disease, pneumonia,

and heart disease, including an increased risk of heart attacks.18School absenteeism

due to respiratory symptoms has also been linked to PM pollution.19Among

chronic health conditions, the leading reason for absenteeism from school is

Strategies to Clean Up U.S Ports

Among chronic health conditions, the leading reason for absenteeism from school is asthma Not surprisingly, PM pollution is associated with the increased prevalence of the condition in children.

asthma Not surprisingly, PM pollution is associated with the increased prevalence

of the condition in children A study of asthmatic African-American children inLos Angeles found an association between reported asthma symptoms and ambient

PM concentrations.20Not only can particulate matter from diesel exhaust triggerasthma attacks in people who already have asthma, but also recent scientific studiesindicate that diesel may affect lung function and even cause asthma in previouslyhealthy people.21,22For example, children living near busy diesel trucking routeshave decreased lung function by comparison with children living near roads withmostly automobile traffic.23A survey of nearly 40,000 children in Italy found thatchildren living on streets with heavy truck traffic were 60 to 90 percent more likely

to have wheezing, phlegm, bronchitis, and pneumonia.24A German study of nearly4,000 adolescent students found that those living on streets with constant truck traffic

Children raised in

heavily polluted areas

have reduced lung

capacity, prematurely

aged lungs, and an

increased risk of

bronchitis and asthma

than do peers living

in less urbanized

areas.

AIR POLLUTION RISKS TO PREGNANT WOMEN AND CHILDRENChildren are at particular risk from air pollution, in part because their lungs are stilldeveloping and their airways are narrower than those of adults, and in part becausethey often play outdoors during the day and thus may have greater exposure Childrenraised in heavily polluted areas have reduced lung capacity, prematurely agedlungs, and an increased risk of bronchitis and asthma than do peers living in lessurbanized areas

In a study comparing air pollution in six U.S cities and the respirator y health

of individuals living in those cities, the frequencies of cough, bronchitis, and lowerrespirator y illness in preadolescent children were significantly associated withincreased levels of acidic fine particles from pollution Illness and symptom rates

in the community with the highest air pollution concentrations were twice those

in the community with the lowest concentrations In addition, some studies havesuggested that children with preexisting respirator y conditions—wheezing andasthma, for example—are at an even greater risk of developing symptoms fromexposure to air pollutants Furthermore, new research shows that asthmaticchildren experience a significant increase in wheezing and chest tightness at ozonelevels significantly below federal standards

Recent research also indicates that cancer-causing chemicals from dieselexhaust can cross the placenta in humans, thus subjecting developing fetuses tothe effects of pollution to which mothers are exposed Although fetal exposures tothese chemicals are one-tenth those of their mothers, genetic damage is detect-able in newborn blood samples at levels significantly higher than in maternal blood.These indications of DNA damage demonstrate that the fetus may be significantlymore susceptible than the mother to these chemicals

Sources: DW Docker y, et al.: “Effects of inhalable par ticles on respirator y health of children,” Am Rev

Respir Dis 139: 587–594, 1989 J Peters, et al “A study of twelve southern California communities with

differing levels and types of air pollution II Effects on pulmonar y function.” Am J Respir, Crit Care Med

159: 768–775, 1999 JH Ware: “Effects of ambient sulfur oxides and suspended par ticles on respirator y

health of preadolescent children.” Am Rev Resp Dis 133:834–842, 1986 JA Pope, Docker y DW: “Acute

health effects of PM10pollution on symptomatic and asymptomatic children.” Am Rev Respir Dis 145: 1123–1128, 1992 KM Mor timer, et al.: “The effect of air pollution on inner-city children with asthma.” Eur

Respir J 19:699–705, 2002 JF Gent, et al “Association of low-level ozone and fine par ticles with

respirator y symptoms in children with asthma,” Journal of the American Medical Association, 290 (14):

1859–1867, 2003 RM Whyatt, et al.: “Biomarkers of polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbon-DNA damage and cigarette smoke exposures in paired maternal and newborn blood samples as a measure of differential

susceptibility.” Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Per v 10: 581–588, 2001.

were 71 percent more likely to have nasal allergies, and more than twice as likely to

report wheezing.25

studies have found that even short-term increases in PM pollution can have lethal

effects Studies in six U.S cities and in Canada showed that daily increases in PM

are associated with increased deaths in the days immediately following.26The deaths

were among individuals with heart and lung disease—those most susceptible to the

noxious effects of PM pollution An examination of data from Detroit, Los Angeles,

and Toronto led researchers to conclude that when PM pollution rises,

hospitaliza-tions for heart failure, chronic obstructive lung disease, and pneumonia in the elderly

also rise.27Separately, a major study of 1.2 million adults followed for two decades

found that exposure to PM pollution was linked with an 8 percent increase in lung

cancer death for every 10 microgram per cubic meter increase of particulate matter in

the air.28

Adverse Health Effects from Volatile Organic Compounds

Not only are volatile organic compounds inherently toxic, but also when they

evap-orate into the air, they can react with other pollutants to form ozone smog Common

VOCs produced by diesel engines include benzene, 1,3-butadiene, formaldehyde,

and toluene, each of which poses significant health risks.29Benzene and butadiene

are known to cause cancer in humans Formaldehyde is very irritating to the airways

and is a probable carcinogen Toluene has been associated with birth defects and

miscarriages and is listed as “known to the state of California to cause birth defects

or reproductive harm.”30Other VOCs emitted by vehicles have also been linked to

cancer, reproductive harm, asthma, or neurological disorders.31

Adverse Health Effects from Nitrogen Oxides

Nitrogen oxides include a large family of chemicals, including nitrogen dioxide,

nitric acid, nitrous oxide, nitrates, and other related compounds They can cause

a wide variety of health problems, including respiratory distress, and environmental

problems, including smog In addition, NOxalso reacts with ammonia, water vapor,

and air pollutants to form other chemicals, some of which can cause cell mutations

and even cancer

A number of studies have found that NOxcan have a toxic effect on the airways,

leading to inflammation and asthmatic reactions.32In fact, people with allergies or

asthma have far stronger reactions to such common allergens as pollen when they are

also exposed to NOx.33A European study of nearly 850 seven-year-old children living in

nonurban communities found that where the nitrogen dioxide levels are consistently

high, such as near major roads or ports, children were up to eight times as likely to

be diagnosed with asthma.34In addition, children who already have asthma are more

likely to cough, wheeze, and suffer from decreased pulmonary function when ambient

levels of NOxin the air are high.35Scientists have also found some evidence that nitrogen

dioxide increases the risk of asthma attacks following respiratory infections A yearlong

Strategies to Clean Up U.S Ports

A major study of 1.2 million adults followed for two decades found that exposure to PM pollution was linked with an 8 percent increase in lung cancer death.

study of 114 asthmatic children found that the combination of moderately elevatedoutdoor nitrogen dioxide levels and a respiratory infection doubled the risk of anasthma attack following either an infection or elevated NOxlevels alone.36

Decreased Lung Function from Ozone (Smog)

The layer of brown hazy smog found over most urban areas in the United States isnot just an eyesore, it is a source of serious illnesses Ozone, also known as smog, is

a reactive gas produced when VOCs and NOxinteract with sunlight and split apartoxygen molecules in the air Ozone is extremely irritating to the airways and thelungs, causing serious damage to the delicate cells lining the airways It contributes

to decreased lung function, increased respiratory symptoms, asthma, emergencyroom visits, and hospital admissions.37Ozone can also make people more susceptible

to respiratory infections.38Ozone can cause irreversible changes in lung structure,eventually leading to chronic respiratory illnesses, such as emphysema and chronicbronchitis.39Those particularly at risk from ozone include children, people withrespiratory disease, asthmatics, and people who exercise outdoors

Among the thousands of published studies on the health effects of ozone arerecent research studies identifying a link between long-term ozone concentrations

in air and new-onset asthma.40Children in Southern California living in areas withhigh ozone levels and playing outdoor sports had three times the risk of developingasthma as children who played outdoor sports in lower-ozone areas.41Asthmaticchildren experience a significant increase in wheezing and chest tightness at ozonelevels significantly below federal standards, according to another new study.42Arecent study in Toronto reported a relationship between short-term elevations inozone concentrations and hospital admissions for respiratory symptoms in childrenyounger than two years old.43Increased respiratory disease serious enough to causeschool absences has been associated with ozone concentrations in studies fromNevada and Southern California.44

Short-term ozone exposure may also be a contributing factor to premature death.The inflammation caused by ozone may make elderly and other sensitive individualsmore susceptible to the adverse effects of other air pollutants, such as particulatematter.45Even short-term exposures to high ozone levels are unhealthy for thismost susceptible group of people A study in eight European cities (London, Athens,Barcelona, Paris, Amsterdam, Basel, Geneva, and Zurich) found a correlation betweenspecific times of death and peak ozone levels, as measured on an hourly basis.46

Adverse Health Effects from Sulfur Oxides

Burning sulfur-containing fuels, such as diesel and high-sulfur marine fuels,produces sulfur oxides (SOx), including sulfur dioxide and a range of relatedchemical air pollutants SOxreact with water vapor in the air to create compoundsthat irritate the airways, sometimes causing discomfort and coughing in healthypeople and often causing severe respiratory symptoms in asthmatics.47One studyfound that when asthmatics were exposed under controlled conditions to levels ofsulfur dioxide similar to those found near pollution sources—ports, for example—

Children in Southern

California living in

areas with high ozone

levels and playing

outdoor sports had

three times the risk

of developing asthma

as children who

played outdoor sports

in lower ozone areas.

lung function dropped by an average of 25 to 30 percent.48In addition, several studiesindicate that the combination of SOxand NOxin the air is particularly noxious becausethe compounds appear to act together to increase allergic responses to such commonallergens as pollen and dust mites.49

THE SOURCES OF AIR POLLUTION AT PORTS

Many major ports, including the ports of Los Angeles and Long Beach, operatevirtually next door to residential neighborhoods, schools, and playgrounds Thesenearby communities face extraordinarily high pollution-related health risks resultingfrom their close proximity to the ports

The major port-related sources of diesel pollution are shown in Figure 1-1 InCalifornia, container ports account for roughly 6 percent of diesel particulate pollu-tion.50This significant percentage is growing every year, in part because air emissionsfrom port-related sources remain largely unregulated Ships, container-handlingequipment, and heavy trucks account for 95 percent of total NOxand 98 percent

of total diesel PM emissions.51

Marine Vessels

For fossil fuel sources worldwide, marine vessels emit 14 percent of the nitrogen oxides,

5 percent of the sulfur oxides, and 2 percent of the carbon dioxide.52In 2000, mercial marine vessels accounted for roughly 7 percent of NOxand 6 percent of PMemissions from all mobile sources in the United States.53Because these vessels arepoorly regulated, their share of polluting emissions is expected to double by 2020.54

com-In fact, commercial diesel ships are expected to account for one-fifth of all diesel ticulate generated in 2020, making them the second largest source of this toxic soot

par-Strategies to Clean Up U.S Ports

CONTAINER PORTS VERSUS CARS

To place port pollution in context, during 2000, the 10 largest container ports bined polluted more than the following number of cars for these major pollutants:

In 2000, container vessels calling at the ten largest U.S ports polluted the airwith more sulfur dioxide than all of the cars in the states of New York, New Jersey,and Connecticut combined Container-related heavy-truck traffic polluted the air with

of Kansas And passenger vehicle traffic in South Carolina polluted less particulatematter than all of the container-handling equipment at the ten largest ports

Sources: Federal Highway Administration; EPA National Emission Trends 2000 Inventor y; environmental impact repor ts and related emission inventories from Por ts of Los Angeles, Long Beach, Houston, and Oakland; and Seapor ts of the Americas.

Container ship traffic to and from the United States doubled between 1990and 2001, and the rate of increase is expected to continue.55Of the 58,000 calls made

by large ships at U.S ports in 2000, almost 30 percent were made by container ships.56

Container ships calling in the United States weigh on average almost 38,000 tons.57

The new generation of container ships, dubbed post-Panamax because they cannotfit through the Panama Canal, are longer than three and a half football fields, orlonger than the Eiffel Tower is tall These vessels produce great quantities of pollutingemissions, both because of the power required to propel their enormous mass andbecause they tend to run on the dirtiest grade of diesel fuel available, called “bunker”

or “residual” fuel.58

Other vessels contributing to pollution at U.S ports include tanker and cruiseships and such harbor craft as tugboats and towboats All are large consumers ofdiesel fuel In the Los Angeles area, oceangoing ships, harbor tugs, and commercialboats emit twice as many smog-forming emissions as all of the area’s powerplants combined.59

transferred to rail and truck and carried to market These containers, and the ships

that carry them, require special cargo-handling equipment at ports Primarily

powered by diesel fuel, the equipment is used to load and unload containers from

ships, locomotives, and trucks, as well as to shuttle those containers around container

yards for storage Cargo-handling equipment includes large gantry cranes used to

load and unload ships, yard trucks that shuttle containers, and various others called

top-picks, side-picks, straddle carriers, and forklifts Regulation of off-road diesel

equipment lags a few decades behind the regulation of on-road diesel trucks and

buses.60In fact, emission standards for heavy diesel equipment were not established

until 1996 and are much weaker than on-road standards.61Indeed, by 2007, new

heavy diesel equipment will create 15 times more PM and NOxpollution than new

highway trucks or buses.62The Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA) recently

adopted off-road diesel rule will significantly strengthen standards for off-road

equipment However, the rule will be phased in from 2008 to as late as 2015 and

will cover only new equipment

Container operations have considerably larger pollution effects than other types of

cargo-handling operations at ports At the Port of Houston, for example, only 42

per-cent of equipment is associated with container operations, but that equipment

accounts for approximately 70 percent of NOxemissions from on-site port activities.63

The significant emissions from container-handling equipment is problematic at

ports such as Los Angeles and Long Beach, where more than 90 percent of the

roughly 2,000 pieces of equipment are associated with container operations

Heavy Trucks Transporting Cargo to and from Ports

The majority of large trucks that service ports, dropping off and picking up

containers, tend to be older and more polluting than long-haul trucks.64

More-over, virtually all run on diesel fuel Not only do the trucks add to existing traffic,

but also they often form bottlenecks at terminal entrance gates, idling for long

periods and contributing even more pollution.65A single port complex can receive

thousands of trucks entering and leaving on a typical

business day.66

Locomotives

More than three-quarters of all train traffic in the

United States transports containers, and most of

these trains are traveling to or from marine ports.67

Overall, locomotives are a more environmentally

efficient way to transport goods than trucks (see

“Rail Versus Road,” page 52), but train engines

are less heavily regulated—and therefore more

polluting—than on-road truck engines.68Switching

locomotives, used to connect containers on flatbed

railcars, are commonly so old as to predate any

emission standards Known as the dirtiest of all rail

Strategies to Clean Up U.S Ports

engines, they are the workhorses of the rail yards located in or near ports, operatingnearly nonstop

Other significant sources of air pollution at ports include cars, light- andmedium-duty trucks, personnel vehicles, recreational marine vessels, diesel-poweredrefrigeration units (reefers), various generators for power, petroleum, and chemicalhandling and storage equipment, maintenance and repair operations, and a variety

of commercial and industrial enterprises commonly colocated at ports Combined,all of these sources cause a major portion of regional air pollution, leading to theserious health effects described earlier See “Container Ports Versus Cars,” page 7 for

a comparison of the pollution levels from the 10 largest U.S ports compared to theamount of pollution from automobile traffic

Control measures that can be employed to address all of the major air pollutionsources outlined here are detailed in Chapter 2 Marine ports, however, affect manyother aspects of the environment and public health and quality of life beyond airquality While the focus of this report is on air pollution from ports, other importantissues are briefly described next

MARINE PORT ACTIVITIES DEGRADE WATER QUALITYWaste from ships, either dumped directly or leached into water, can cause significantdamage to water quality, and subsequently to marine life and ecosystems and humanhealth These effects may include bacterial and viral contamination of commercialfish and shellfish, depletion of oxygen in water, and bioaccumulation of certaintoxins in fish.69

Oily bilge water is one major pollutant from ships Water collected at thebottom of the hull of a ship, known as the bilge, is often contaminated by leakingoil from machinery This bilge water must be emptied periodically to maintain shipstability and to prevent the accumulation of hazardous vapors This oily wastewater,combined with other ship wastes, including sewage and wastewater from otheron-board uses, is a serious threat to marine life.70

Other pollutants from ships are the antifouling additives used in the paint on ships

to prevent the growth of barnacles and other marine organisms on ship surfaces Some

of these additives contain tributyltin (TBT), a toxic chemical that can leach into water.71

Once in the water, TBT is absorbed by marine life In fact, TBT bioaccumulates, meaningthat it is not simply released by marine life but rather builds up in the body and is taken

in by predators.72Not surprisingly, researchers have found TBT in bottleneck dolphinsand bluefin tuna TBT can cause masculinization of female snails through disruption

of endocrine systems.73It has also been shown to cause oyster larvae mortality anddeformations in oyster shells.74In shipyard workers, TBT has been linked to skinirritation, stomach aches, colds, influenza, and such neurological symptoms asheadaches, fatigue, and dizziness.75While toxic antifouling additives are slowlybeing phased out of use, these toxic pollutants persist in the marine environment.Environmentally safe alternatives to TBT are widely available They includecopper-based and tin-free antifouling paints, nonstick coatings that provide a

The new generation

of container ships,

dubbed post-Panamax

because they cannot

fit through the

Panama Canal, are

longer than three and

a half football fields,

or longer than the

Eiffel Tower is tall.

slippery surface on which organisms cannot attach, prickly coatings that also prevent

attachment, regular cleaning of the hull, natural biocides that imitate corals’ and

sponges’ antifouling secretions, and electrical current.76

Stormwater Runoff

Rain and other forms of precipitation are naturally occurring events that are not in

and of themselves polluting But when stormwater travels as runoff across paved

surfaces, it can accumulate deposits of air pollution, automotive fluids, sediments,

nutrients, pesticides, metals, and other pollutants In fact, urban stormwater runoff

from all sources, including marine ports, is the largest source of impairment in U.S

coastal waters and the second largest source of water pollution in U.S estuaries.77

The high quantities of pollution carried by stormwater, as well as the increased

volume, velocity, and temperature of the water as it runs off paved surfaces can

lead to dramatic changes in hydrology and water quality

Virtually all of the land at a port terminal is paved and therefore impervious to water

Scientists have repeatedly demonstrated a correlation between such impervious surfaces

and stormwater pollution For example, a one-acre parking lot produces 16 times the

runoff of an undeveloped meadow.78Numerous studies have documented the adverse

environmental effects from increases in impervious surfaces in a given area, including

flooding, habitat loss, water quality decline, and reduced diversity of aquatic life.79

Eutrophication

If waterbodies are overloaded with nitrogen, then algae and plankton can rapidly

increase in numbers, forming blooms—sometimes called red or brown tides This

process, called eutrophication, has been identified by the National Research Council

as the most serious pollution problem facing estuaries in the United States.80The

EPA estimates that NOxair pollution contributes between 12 and 44 percent of total

nitrogen water pollution, making it the leading cause of eutrophication.81The

result-ing algal blooms use up the oxygen in water, killresult-ing large numbers of fish and

shell-fish Such blooms and resulting fish kills have been seen off the New England coast

and in other areas of the United States.82As noted earlier, ports are major sources of

NOxand thus major contributors to eutrophication

Oil Spills

Oil spills continue to be a large marine pollution problem In the year 2000, 8,354 oil

spills were reported in U.S waters, accounting for more than 1.4 million gallons of

spilled oil The majority of these spills have occurred in internal and headlands waters,

including the harbors and waterways upon which ports rely.83

A large share of oil contamination is the result of “chronic” pollution from such

sources as port runoff, unloading and loading of oil tankers, and removal of bilge

water, and it leads to three times as much oil pollution as do tanker accidents.84

However, large, “catastrophic” spills also have a significant impact One such spill

in 2000, resulting from the overfilling of a tank barge, dumped 80,000 gallons of

oil into the Houston Ship Channel.85In 2002, in Charleston, a tear in a ship spilled

Strategies to Clean Up U.S Ports

A one-acre parking lot produces 16 times the runoff of an undevel- oped meadow.

12,500 gallons of oil into the Cooper River, causing much long-term ecologicaldamage and accounting for millions of dollars in cleanup costs Another spill of 500gallons in Charleston’s Wando Welch Terminal in February 2003 fueled concern thatsuch spills are becoming more frequent because of the port’s growth.86

Oil spills can harm both ecosystems and people’s health, as the Exxon Valdez

spill showed when it caused massive wildlife die-offs.87Oil can diminish animals’insulation by sticking to fur or feathers and can even poison animals that ingest

or inhale its many toxins These toxins also cause long-term damage to the lungs,liver, and kidneys, as well as to the digestive, reproductive, and central nervoussystems Oil may even pass from bird feathers through the pores of eggs a bird isguarding, killing or severely damaging developing chicks still in the shell.88Certaincontaminants in oil may bioaccumulate, causing health consequences at levelshigher up in the food chain.89In fact, oil-contaminated seafood poses a risk tohumans who eat it.90

Dredging

Ports are routinely dredged to remove sediment that builds up in ship channelsfrom erosion and silt deposition, as well as to create new channels and deepenexisting ones Each year, more than 300 million cubic yards of sediment in waterwaysand harbors is dredged to allow ships to pass through.91The total amount of theseannual “dredge spoils” is enough to cover a four-lane highway with a 20-foot moundfrom New York City to Los Angeles.92Much of this sediment is disposed of in openwater or near shore, but some may also be used as fill in various land-based projects.About 5 to 10 percent of dredged sediment is contaminated with toxics, includingpolychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs), mercury and other heavy metals, polycyclicaromatic VOCs (PAHs), and pesticides, all of which can cause water contaminationand complicate sediment disposal.93

Dredging may increase water turbidity (cloudiness), harm habitat, and disturb

or kill threatened and endangered species It may also risk stirring up and releasingburied contaminants Dredging performed by the Port of Miami in the early 1990sraised concerns over the destruction of seagrasses and the harbor’s rocky seabeds,

or “hardbottom.” Post-dredging hardbottom restoration was fairly effective, butmeasures introduced to mitigate the loss of seagrass were far less so, successfullyreplacing only 10 percent of lost seagrass and robbing manatees and sea turtles of

an important food source and habitat.94,95

The dangers of dredging have taken on even greater significance in recentyears, with the growing popularity of post-Panamax vessels, which requirechannel depths of 45 to 50 feet.96In a scramble to remain competitive, many portsare being redredged to deepen or widen their shipping channels The ports ofCharleston, Los Angeles, Long Beach, Miami, Savannah, New York/New Jersey,and Houston are all involved in such projects, creating millions of extra cubicyards of dredge material that will need to be disposed of somewhere.97

Alternative methods of disposal of dredged sediment are available They includeconstruction and industrial uses, fill material for parking lots and roads, landfill

Each year, dredging

of U.S waterways

and harbors produces

more than 300 million

cubic yards of

sedi-ment—enough to

cover a four-lane

highway with a

20-foot mound from

New York City to

Los Angeles.

cover, shoreline erosion control, artificial reef material, and wetland creation and

restoration The Port of Houston has built marshes and a wildlife habitat with its

ship channel sediment, more than 16 million cubic yards of which has been removed

since 1998 Over the course of the ongoing project, about 4,250 acres of intertidal

salt marsh and a six-acre bird nesting and habitat island are being constructed, and

40 acres of an eroded island are being restored in the largest effort of its kind in the

country.98The sediment used for the project was deemed nontoxic by a coalition of

government agencies called the Beneficial Uses Group Many organizations are

advo-cating for the beneficial reuse of dredge material, as long as it is not contaminated.99

A number of groups are exploring further alternative methods for disposal of

con-taminated dredge.100

Specific Threats to Marine Life

The EPA estimates that only half of the continental United States’ original wetlands

remain; millions of acres have been lost to development From 1986 to 1997, some

58,500 acres of wetland were lost each year, and today, the remaining wetlands are

home to one-third of the nation’s threatened or endangered species Because many

ports are located either on former wetland sites or near remaining wetlands, they

pose grave dangers to sensitive ecosystems and the surrounding areas The combined

effects of dredging, drainage, fill, runoff, and air and water pollutants include

disrup-tion of bird migradisrup-tion patterns, loss of biodiversity, increased flooding, chemical

con-tamination of soil and marine life, loss of recreational opportunities, and erosion.101

Water sedimentation from erosion and dredging may also cause irreversible

damage to other important centers of biodiversity such as seagrass beds In addition,

toxic contaminants in sediment or runoff may affect commercial fish populations and

even make these fish unsafe for human consumption Three-quarters of all

commer-cial fish are caught in the estuaries in which ports are located.102Projects to mitigate

this loss of habitat are cropping up throughout the country As noted earlier, one such

effort has been undertaken at the Port of Houston

Collisions involving boats and marine mammals also contribute to marine

mortality Since 1995, along the East Coast, eight right whales, a species in danger

of extinction, have been killed by collisions with ships These whales must share the

coastal waters they need for migration routes with the ships that travel to and from

bustling East Coast ports.103Manatees also die from collisions with ships or from

being crushed beneath barges or between docks and vessels in the shallow estuaries,

bays, and canals along which ports are located.104

Expansive wharves built on piles can block sunlight from reaching aquatic plants upon

which marine wildlife rely for survival For example, the manatee in Florida, salmon,

Dungeness crab, and Pacific herring in Puget Sound suffer from such loss of habitat.105,106

Exposure to debris, including plastic bags, netting, and plastic pellets, results in

thousands of wildlife deaths each year, through starvation, exhaustion, or ingestion

of toxics often found in plastics.107Plastic pellets, the raw material for plastic goods,

have been found polluting oceans all over the world, as well as 13 of 14 U.S harbors

tested in an EPA study The pellets can be spilled directly into the ocean from

ship-Strategies to Clean Up U.S Ports

The EPA estimates that only half of the continental United States’ original wet- lands remain; millions

of acres have been lost to development, including development

of port terminals.

ping containers or can travel via stormwater discharge They are known to beingested by one-quarter of all seabird species and have been found to account for

71 percent of all plastic ingested by seabirds.108,109In the Houston Ship Channel alone,250,000 pellets were found in a single sample during a 1992 study.110The effects onseabirds include malnutrition (since they have been found to mistake pellets forfood), stomach ulcers, and accumulation of PCBs in the birds’ systems.111Thesepellets can also cause problems higher up in the food chain because they can storeand transport toxic chemicals in addition to PCBs, including DDE (a breakdownproduct of DDT) and nonylphenols.112

Roughly 10,000 of the 100 million containers shipped annually fall overboard.113

As containers are stacked ever taller and wider, the odds of spillage increase, which

is particularly alarming given that almost one-third of all cargo is hazardous material.114

Ballast Water

Ballast water taken in or discharged by large ships to maintain balance is responsiblefor the transport of thousands of marine species into foreign habitats worldwide.These invasive species often prey upon native species, or compete for resources withthem—thus posing hazards to native species and ecosystems and threatening bio-diversity and human health.115For example, ballast water from cargo ships has beenimplicated in transporting a South American strain of cholera to the Gulf of Mexico,leading to fish and shellfish contamination.116Ballast water itself is also responsiblefor the introduction of “red tide” algae to the waters of several countries, contami-nating shellfish and threatening human health.117,118The 3 billion to 5 billion tons ofballast water moved by ships annually, including the 80 million tons discharged intoU.S waters, is only loosely regulated.119,120

MARINE PORT LAND USE CAN ADVERSELY AFFECT NEIGHBORING COMMUNITIES

As noted, the highly industrialized operations at ports are often in close proximity

to residential areas, creating a number of hazards and nuisances for nearby ties Ports have several available options to avoid developing new terminals near resi-dential areas They can develop property previously used in an industrial capacity,

communi-or they can increase the land use efficiency of existing terminals The land usepatterns at U.S ports suggest much room for effiency improvements Of the tenlargest U.S ports, even those that are most efficient in terms of land use—Long Beachand Houston—are only one-fourth as efficient as the Port of Singapore, a model

of land use efficiency The ports of Savannah and Hampton Roads exhibit the leastefficient land use, as shown in Figure 1-2 Details of this comparison can be found

in Appendix A

Brownfields

Brownfields are tracts of land developed for industrial purposes, polluted or ceived to be polluted, and then abandoned.121The potential costs of cleaning upbrownfield sites makes them unappealing to companies looking to locate or

expand As a result, new industrial operations are often sited on pristine, oped greenfield land, often leading to a loss of habitat and wildlife, increases inair and water pollution, and urbanization of open space valuable for recreation andaesthetic qualities.122

undevel-However, developing brownfields offers many advantages to business, munities, and the environment Businesses benefit from locating on sites near

com-existing transportation infrastructure and with a utility infrastructure already

in place, while cleaning up contamination that poses a danger to both the munity and the environment.123Several ports, including the ports of Seattle andLong Beach, have demonstrated the feasibility of brownfield redevelopment ontheir properties.124,125

com-Noise Pollution

With machines, trucks, and ships operating 24 hours a day, and pile driving andblasting from channel maintenance and expansion, ports can be loud The noisepollution from port activities, in addition to being annoying, can have serious

negative health effects Noise pollution has been linked to hearing impairment,high blood pressure, sleep deprivation, reduced performance, and even aggressivebehavior.126Additionally, noise from ship engines may disturb marine mammalhearing and behavior patterns, as well as bird feeding and nesting sites.127,128

With those dangers in mind, several ports are taking steps to reduce noise

pollution The ports of Stockholm, Helsinki, Copenhagen, and Oslo are workingtogether to reduce noise emitted from cruise ships, for example, and a new lawpassed in March 2003 in Valencia, Spain, calls for a reduction in noise pollutionand will most likely regulate that city port’s equipment and machinery.129,130

Strategies to Clean Up U.S Ports

Houston Savannah Seattle Hampton Roads Oakland Charleston NY/NJ

Long Beach Los

Angeles

Average of 10 U.S Ports

FIGURE 1-2

Land Use Efficiency at 10 U.S Ports Compared to the Port of Singapore

Note: Data used to prepare this graph are explained in Appendix A.

Light Pollution

Artificial lights at ports, sometimes burning 24 hours a day, can have negativeeffects on wildlife, including disorientation, confusion of biological rhythms thatare adapted to a day/night alternation, and a general degradation of habitat quality.This pollution can cause high mortality in animal populations, particularly to birdsattracted to brightly lit buildings and towers; they can circle these structures untilthey die of exhaustion or fly head-on into them.131,132At ports bordering residentialneighborhoods, bright nighttime lights and the flashing lights of straddle carriers andforklifts can affect nearby residents, disrupting biological rhythms and causing stressand annoyance.133,134

Environmental Justice

People of color and low-income families live next door to more polluters than anyother group in the United States As a result, these communities often suffer fromhigher rates of illness and diminished quality of life, by comparison with residents

of middle-class suburbs and affluent communities Environmental injustices occurnext to marine terminals just as they do next to other industrial and waste disposalsites such as power plants or landfills

Communities next to marine ports are severely affected by heavy traffic and thenoise and air pollution that come with it While many communities are becomingmore active on these issues, injustices continue across the country and are one ofthe major motivating factors to clean up industrial marine port activities

People of color and

low-income families

live next door to

more polluters than

any other group in

the United States.

I MPROVING P ORT

This chapter reviews cost-effective approaches to reduce air and water pollution

from port-related activities Recommended approaches are presented according

to the source of port pollution (marine vessels, cargo-handling equipment, off-site

trucks, and locomotives) and also as discussions about stormwater programs,

con-struction design features, and other measures Recommended measures for each

air pollution source focus on reducing emissions from diesel engines through the

“five R’s”:

and vessels with the cleanest available new models

left can often be repowered with cleaner new engines, simply swapping the old

engine for a new one

also known as after-treatments—that significantly reduce exhaust emissions

reduce emissions to some extent

millions of gallons of fuel in addition to polluting

We recommend the following measures to maximize emission reductions from

port-related diesel pollution sources:

Clean up harbor craft, such as tugboats, through engine repower and retrofit

pro-grams Limit idling of oceangoing vessels and tugboatsby providing electrical power

at docks and requiring ships and tugboats to “plug in” to shoreside power while at

berth Require ships to use the cleanest grade of diesel fuel possible, with a sulfur

content of 15 to 2,000 parts per million (ppm) Finally, where possible, create incentives

or otherwise promote the use of emission controls on oceangoing vessels

CHAPTER 2

HARBORING POLLUTION

Strategies to Clean Up U.S Ports

August 2004

Make it a priority to retire the oldest cargo-handling equipment—that is, equipment that

is ten or more years old Then commit to replacing it with the cleanest available ment and fuel choices—specifically, equipment that is designed to run on alternativefuels—where possible Make it a priority to retrofit existing equipment that is less thanten years old so that it, too, can run on the best available control technology, such asdiesel particulate filters (DPFs) with lean NOxcatalysts (LNCs) where feasible anddiesel oxidation catalysts (DOCs) where DPFs are not practical Also, switch to cleanerdiesel fuels, such as low-sulfur fuel used with DPFs and diesel emulsions with DOCs

equip-
Create an incentive program for off-site trucksthat encourages “fleet tion”—the retirement of older trucks and their replacement with modern lower-emitting trucks Also offer incentives for the installation of pollution controls, such

moderniza-as DPF–LNC combinations where low-sulfur diesel is available, or DOCs or through filters where low-sulfur diesel is not available Also, make cleaner fuels, such

flow-as diesel emulsions or low-sulfur diesel, available to off-site trucks Finally, minimizetruck idling by using electrical plug-in devices and automatic idle shutoff devices,and also by enforcing idling limits

Repower or replace all switching locomotivesthat do not meet the EPA Tier 0 dards with electric hybrid or alternative-fuel engines Install engine after-treatmentswhere possible Require automatic engine-idling controls to minimize unnecessaryidling Finally, commit to using cleaner fuels, such as on-road grade diesel

stan-Each recommendation discusses the available technology, the pollutants reduced

by available technology, the unit cost of the technology, and its cost-effectiveness.Also, for each recommendation, a discussion of the potential benefits and draw-backs of implementation is included, and, where possible, examples are provided

ASSUMPTIONS BEHIND COST-BENEFIT DISCUSSIONS

The following four criteria were considered in the discussion of each tion in this section:

recommenda-Available technologies.Diesel and alternative fuel and engine technologies haveimproved over the past few decades and continue to progress at a rapid pace

Control technologies have been further developed even during the writing of thisreport We attempt in these pages to summarize only those technologies available

on the market at the time of this writing

Pollutants reduced.Emission reductions are reported based on either (a) verified

or certified levels or (b) technical studies reported in trade journals or through

professional organizations

Unit costs.Because some of these measures were developed for direct application

at the Port of Los Angeles, cost estimates and other criteria may differ slightly

when applied to other ports However, many of these measures are already in

practice at ports around the world and are likely to be feasible elsewhere

Cost-effectiveness.Cost-effectiveness data is presented in this report as a range

to reflect variable assumptions such as the cost of certain fuels and control ment, potential emission reductions, actual usage or mileage, and existing engine age

equip-(see “Assumptions Behind Cost-Benefit Discussions, page 18”) Other tions discussed include model programs to reduce polluting stormwater runoff atports and construction design features to control pollution at ports.

recommenda-MARINE VESSELS

We recommend four major changes to reduce pollution of oceangoing ships andharbor craft: (1) fund the retrofit and repower of existing harbor craft; (2) reduceemissions of oceangoing ships and harbor craft while at berth by providing shoresidepower to run necessary systems; (3) reduce emissions by using cleaner fuels in thevessels; and (4) control emissions from oceangoing ships

Harbor Craft Retrofits and Repowers

Ports should fund an incentive program to encourage tugboat owner/operators torepower and retrofit vessels by replacing older engines with new, lower-emittingengines and then adding after-treatment systems Upon receiving a cash grant,

Strategies to Clean Up U.S Ports

CALCULATING COST-EFFECTIVENESS

Calculations used to determine cost-effectiveness are a common tool for evaluatingthe relative benefits of an emission-reduction strategy The results are typicallygiven in cost per unit of emissions reduced For example, $4 per pound of particu-late matter (PM) means that the strategy will cost $4 for ever y pound of particulatematter it reduces over a project’s life

Cost-effectiveness estimates var y significantly depending on the pollutant to

be controlled, as well as on the type of source to be controlled Many measuresdescribed here reduce multiple pollutants, a plus on the ground but a complicatingfactor when comparing cost-effectiveness Higher levels of emission reductionstranslate into lower cost-effectiveness per ton of emission reduced; the lower, thebetter However, the higher cost-effectiveness of PM reduction strategies must be

There is no single cost-ef fectiveness threshold that is appropriate for all

projects However, several California rules and programs provide examples TheCalifornia Air Resources Board (CARB) has historically adopted rules that cost

of PM reduced The Carl Moyer heavy-duty diesel vehicle incentive program originally

Other Southern California incentive programs set the cost-effectiveness criteria

incentive funding

Because new engines are manufactured according to tighter regulations, the ginal benefit of applying pollution reduction measures goes down, as the cost goes

mar-up As a general rule, the lower the cost-effectiveness of a project, the better it is

Source: California Air Resources Board, Staff Repor t: Initial Statement of Reasons, Proposed Diesel

Par ticulate Matter Control Measure for On-Road Heavy-Duty Residential and Commercial Solid Waste

Collection Vehicles, June 6, 2003: 56.

tugboat owner/operators would be required to take their vessels out of service on

a specified schedule and install new propulsion engines or after-treatment systems

or both In prioritizing projects, criteria to consider include the emission rates of olderengines, the hours the vessel operates, the age of the vessel’s engines, the timetablefor replacement, and the willingness of the tugboat owner/operator to remain in thesame coastal waters after improving the vessel

Most tugboats use two large diesel engines for main propulsion, along with one

or two smaller engines for auxiliary power Main propulsion engines have usefullives in excess of 20 years; in fact, one survey in the San Francisco Bay area docu-ments many that have been maintained in service for well over 30 years Olderengines, in particular two-stroke engines, tend to be considerably more pollutingthan new engines available to replace them

economy (with higher NOxemissions) or for lower fuel economy (with lower NOxemissions) Because no international or national emission standards apply to theseolder engines, operators have no economic incentive to tune them for low NOx

emissions While NOxreductions from tugboat repowering have been well mented, it is likely that PM, VOCs, CO, and CO2emissions will be lowered as wellbecause newer engines are generally more fuel efficient Additionally, engine after-treatments, such as oxidation catalysts, can further reduce PM, VOCs, and CO.Specific emission reductions will vary by tug, depending on the emissions rate ofexisting engines, the service provided by the tug and how much it is operated, andthe emission rate of replacement engines Estimates of the annual emissions reduceddue to the upgrade of “average” tugs are listed in Table 2-1 Estimates are for tugs ofvarious sizes with two main propulsion engines, and operating 2,000 hours per year.More information on tug emissions can be found in Appendix B

docu-Addition of an oxidation catalyst would reduce particulates by 25 to 50 percent.Oxidation catalysts also reduce VOCs and CO; typical reductions from on-roadvehicles can be as great as 90 percent for both pollutants

per unit.1Funding programs usually cover the cost of the new engine only, but laborand dry dock costs can run roughly $200,000 Tug operators usually recoup this extra

cost by selling the used engine, at roughly $150,000 for a large engine, and with fuel

savings from the improved fuel economy of new engines.2Oxidation catalysts cost

anywhere from $8 to $10 per horsepower, usually costing more per horsepower

for larger units A tugboat with two 2,000-horsepower engines would cost roughly

$50,000 to retrofit with an oxidation catalyst, including the support frames and

ductwork necessary for large engines

NOxavoided between $200 and $600 Cost-effectiveness was not evaluated for

oxidation catalysts

There are a number of precedents for successfully repoweringtugs with new replacement engines The majority of the

50 to 60 tugboats in service in the Los Angeles area have been repowered through

state and local programs.3Tugs have also been repowered in the San Francisco Bay

area and in New York Harbor Hong Kong’s Star Ferry has been fitted with an

oxi-dation catalyst, and a retrofit project on New York ferries testing other retrofit

technologies, such as selective catalytic reduction (SCR) and diesel particulate

filters (DPFs), started in May 2004.4,5

Replacement programs are relatively simple to administer andcan be extremely cost-effective when applied to larger tugs with2,000 or more hours of operation per year

Oxidation catalysts are a relatively simple control technology that does not require

special maintenance It is wise to fit vessels with an oxidation catalyst or other

after-treatment system while they are already in dry dock for engine replacement However,

it should be noted that operators who install oxidation catalysts will need to use a

cleaner grade of marine diesel, with sulfur levels no higher than 500 parts per million

Tug operators must be persuaded to sign a binding agreement to take their boats

out of service temporarily to allow their engines to be replaced Boats are usually out

of service for one month while engines are replaced Additionally, operators must

agree to operate “permanently” in the same coastal waters, in order to ensure that the

benefits of the repower remain in the area

Shoreside Power

Marine vessels contribute substantial quantities of air pollution by running onboard

diesel auxiliary engines for power while they are at dock This “hoteling,” as it is

known, contributes significant but unnecessary pollution, aggravated by auxiliary

engines run on bunker fuel—the dirtiest grade of diesel This measure therefore

employs a strategy of hooking docked marine vessels to less polluting power sources

and is a critical step to reducing emissions from marine vessels Plugging in to

shore-side power, also known as “cold ironing,” should make use of near-zero or

zero-emissions technology to provide cleaner power to docked vessels Several ports

throughout the world, including Los Angeles, California; Juneau, Alaska; and

DISCUSSION

E X A M P L E S

Strategies to Clean Up U.S Ports

Plugging in to shoreside power should make use of near-zero or zero- emissions technology

to provide cleaner power to docked vessels.

Göteberg, Sweden, have already implemented shoreside powermeasures, and they serve as examples.

Specifically, this measure calls for ports to (1) require side power as a condition of new terminal leases or renewals;(2) invest in infrastructure for electric power; (3) develop shore-side power for port-operated facilities; (4) subsidize the devel-opment of shoreside power for harborcraft; and (5) providefunding to offset the costs of retrofitting vessels to accommodateshoreside power For this measure to be successful, sufficientpower must be available for use at the wharves Three specificpower source options should be considered: a new installation

shore-or an upgraded substation, fuel cell units, and a “power barge.”Installation or upgrade of a port area substation would beappropriate for terminals requiring high power loads, such ascruise terminals or very large cargo areas Requirements wouldinclude 3- to 15-megawatt transformers that meet varying voltagerequirements, and flexible connections for vessels loading oroff-loading at dock The emissions associated with the electricalgeneration supplied by the substation must be significantlylower than the emissions generated by auxiliary engines on thereceiving vessels to ensure meaningful reductions, making theuse of renewable energy sources or natural gas appropriate

Any port-operated substation should employ the best available control technology(BACT) to reduce pollution impacts

The second power-generation option is the installation of one or two fuel cell units(200 to 250 kW) at berths where smaller ships (tugboats, commercial fishing boats,and crew/supply boats, for example) are hoteling, and where natural gas is available

applica-tions (greater than 100 kilowatts), emissions from cold ironing would be far below the

Long cables connect a large

container ship to shoreside

power.

emissions from diesel power generation The type of fuel used to generate shoresideelectricity at a port for either technology approach, of course, will largely determinethe level of emissions reductions this strategy will achieve For cold ironing, the use

of more renewables, cleaner fuels, and BACT for power plants in a utility’s portfoliowill also play a role in overall emissions reductions and will further alleviate con-cerns about the issue of transferring the pollution problem from the port area to thelocation of the power generation plant

The EPA has developed estimates of the current mix of technology used in tions such as auxiliary diesel engines.6The range of horsepower ratings for this class

applica-of engines is from 50 to 750 hp Table 2-2 compares current emissions from auxiliarydiesel engines to emissions from average U.S power plants and two different fuelcell technologies The average power plant in the United States is at least five times

as clean as a marine diesel engine.7Additionally, notoriously dirty coal-fired powerplants alone release only one-third as much NOxthan marine diesel engines

marine applications is its high cost The price tag for construction of necessary station(s) along with the transformers, cable, and connectors required to implementcold ironing will vary for different ports The Princess Tours cruise line spent $2 mil-lion to retrofit four cruise ships and an additional $2.5 million on shoreside constructionfor electrical hookups at its Juneau, Alaska, terminal.8The electrical hookups, or

sub-“festooning” system, in Juneau had to accommodate 25 feet of tidal variation, winterice, and severe storms, unlikely events to occur at ports in the lower 48 states.9

Operating costs of electrical power versus ship fuel used in Juneau are comparable.Although the electrical power there is inexpensive at $0.045 per kilowatt-hour, asmore expensive lower-sulfur marine fuel becomes mandatory, higher-priced electricalpower in other regions will remain competitive.10

two U.S locations (Alaska and Los Angeles) and because costs are likely to vary

Strategies to Clean Up U.S Ports

Source: National Fuel Cell Research Center, University of California, Ir vine Power plant data based on the Energy

Information Administrations’ Electric Power Industr y 2000: The Year in Review and EPA’s National Emission Trends.

a Based on naturally aspirated auxiliar y diesel engine

b Based on all utility production in 2000 combined, including coal (56 percent), petroleum (2 percent), natural gas (10 percent), nuclear (23 percent), and hydro (8 percent)

c Depends on fuel cell technology employed: PAFC (phosphoric acid fuel cell) or MCFC (molten carbonate fuel cell)

significantly, cost-effectiveness should be estimated on a case-by-case basis ever, the Port of Long Beach completed its year-long feasibility study in early 2004

How-on electric power for ships at berth and found shoreside power to be cost-effectivefor many applications including cruise and container ships.11

The Swedish port of Göteborg has led the way on commercialshoreside power installations The Göteborg project alone hasreduced 80 tons of NOx, 60 tons of SOx, and 2 tons of PM emissions annually because

of shoreside power used by ferries and several cargo vessels.12Efforts are currentlyunder way to replace fossil-fuel-based shoreside energy with nearby wind energy.Other Northern European ports, such as Lubeck, Germany, have plans for similarelectric ship-to-shore projects

The Princess Tours cruise line followed suit in 2001, installing shoreside power at itsterminal in Juneau, Alaska, after incurring several fines averaging $27,500 each for visiblesmoke from its cruise ships.13Although some minor technical difficulties arose during thedesign and construction phases of the project, they proved surmountable In fact, Princessreports that the project is working well and that it is pleased with the program overall.14

Each ship takes 30 to 45 minutes to hook up to the electrical power while docking,requiring an average of 6 to 10 megawatts to run full cruise ship electrical service.California ports are also slowly catching up The Port of Oakland installed powerplug-ins on a new tugboat wharf in 2001 so that tugboats could shut down theirengines while at berth.15Oakland considers this too expensive for larger ocean-going vessels; however, the ports of Los Angeles and Long Beach are both activelyexploring the possibility The City of Los Angeles signed a memorandum of under-standing with six shipping lines to participate in the development of its alternativemarine power (AMP) program, and the port has recently completed electrification

of a berth at the China Shipping terminal (see “China Shipping Plugs In,” page 24).Some ports are beginning to use shoreside power for dredging equipment Electricdredges have been used in various projects in Texas and California.16

Cold ironing has been practiced in the past and apparentlycontinues to be used by the U.S Navy It could achieveenormous emission reductions from large oceangoing vessels, which are difficult toregulate because most are operated under foreign flags Terminal workers, especiallythose aboard ships on nearby docks, gain improved working conditions because theyare no longer subjected to the exhaust and noise of the auxiliary engines Of course,shoreside power is also an opportunity to develop such alternative and petroleum-independent power sources as fuel cells

The viability of cold ironing applications and their ability to power vessels at dockdepends greatly on the infrastructure outlay A surplus of available power on theorder of 2 to 10 megawatts is necessary, and land for substation development andcable-laying right-of-way must be available close to the terminals

In addition, some ships may not have the correct electrical hookups to allow theproper connection This problem can be overcome, however, by making agreements

from large oceangoing

vessels, which are

difficult to regulate

because most are

operated under

foreign flags.

or memoranda of understanding with shipping lines and terminal operators during

lease agreements or renewals

Cleaner Fuels

Ports should significantly reduce emissions from marine vessels by requiring reduced

sulfur content of marine diesel fuel Large oceangoing marine vessels are notorious

for running on bunker fuel, the dirtiest grade of diesel We recommend that ships run

on fuel with the lowest sulfur content possible, from 15 to 2,000 ppm

Higher sulfur content fuels cause increased emissions of NOx, SOx, and PMs

Although cleaner running vessels are slowly penetrating the U.S market (see

“Quiet, Clean, Hybrid Marine Power,” page 33), current marine diesel fuel can reach

levels as high as 50,000 ppm sulfur (5 percent by weight) These high sulfur levels

are approximately 15 times as great as current EPA non-road diesel fuel standards and

100 times as great as current EPA on-road fuel standards Several lower-sulfur and

alternative fuel options are available that are compatible with existing oceangoing

and harbor-craft marine vessel engines, including fuels currently used for nonroad

and on-road vehicular applications

According to the International Organization for Standardization (ISO 8217),

19 categories of marine residual fuels are available internationally The lowest

sulfur content fuel grade must have sulfur content less than 1 percent sulfur

(10,000 ppm) Table 2-3 summarizes the most common of these marine fuel

specifications under ISO 8217

The widely accepted average for marine bunker fuels in use by ships around the

globe is approximately 2.7 percent sulfur (27,000 ppm) For comparison purposes,

Strategies to Clean Up U.S Ports

CHINA SHIPPING PLUGS IN

The Port of Los Angeles unveiled the world’s first electrified container terminal

in June 2004, where ships can plug in to shoreside power while at berth instead

of continuously running their dirty diesel engines to generate electricity The new

China Shipping Line terminal facility is expected to eliminate at least 1 ton per

day of nitrogen oxides and particulate matter for each ship that plugs in, and

can accommodate two ships at one time, according to the Port of Los Angeles

The Port of Los Angeles also reports that one vessel call is equivalent to about

69,000 diesel truck miles—enough to drive around the world nearly three times

The shoreside power facility is part of a legal settlement negotiated by NRDC,

Coalition for Clean Air, Communities for a Better Environment, and two San Pedro

homeowner groups, who sued the Port and City of Los Angeles in 2001 alleging they

had approved the China Shipping Line terminal without considering or mitigating harm

to neighboring communities The final settlement also requires the port to use

terminal tractors that run on cleaner, alternative fuels instead of diesel; to evaluate

the feasibility of cleaner marine fuels; and to minimize aesthetic impacts of cranes

The port must also establish a $50 million fund for mitigation of air quality and

aesthetic impacts in the community, including $10 million to clean up old trucks

Sources: Por t of Los Angeles, Alternative Marine Power, 21 June 2004, http://www.por toflosangeles.org/

Environmental/AMP.htm (29 June 2004).

The Port of Los Angeles reports that pollution from one vessel call is equiva- lent to about 69,000 diesel truck miles— enough to drive around the world nearly three times.

Table 2-4 lists the various national and international sulfur content fuels that areeither in use today or slated for use in the near future Because these fuels are

available nationally, and because global conventions have recognized the need forlower sulfur content fuels (see Appendix D for more information on internationalrules governing marine fuels), several cleaner-fuel options are available for marinepropulsion and auxiliary engines, as well as for on-board, backup generators Inaddition, the use of cleaner, lower-sulfur fuels enables the use of a wider range ofcontrol technologies on these engines

Some marine vessels will be required by the EPA under its recent nonroad rule

to use a cleaner blend of diesel (500 ppm sulfur) starting in 2007, and an even cleanerblend (15 ppm sulfur) starting in 2012.17(See Chapter 3 for details.)

TABLE 2-3

Summary of Marine Fuel Specifications

Heavy fuel oil (HFO)—includes IFO380 and IFO180 (also known as 5% or 50,000 ppm bunker fuel, or BFO)

Marine Diesel Oil (MDO)—DMB (slightly lower density and viscosity 2% or 20,000 ppm than DMC)

Source: Marine fuel specifications according to the International Organization for Standardization (ISO 8217:1996) available at www.bunker world.com/technical/iso8217_res.htm.

Note: Marine diesel oil and marine gas oil are considered distillates and marine diesel oil is a blend of gas oil and heavy oil Wihin each fuel grade categor y, the sulfur content of available fuels for purchase can be significantly lower than the maximum allowable sulfur content specified in the table.

TABLE 2-4

Summary of Sulfur Content in Various Fuels

percent ppm Example of Current Usage or Status

4.5 45,000 Maximum allowable level for marine fuels in the International

Con-vention for the PreCon-vention of Pollution From Ships (MARPOL) 2.7 27,000 Average for marine fuels (widely accepted global average)

1.5 15,000 Recently proposed by EU as its cap for marine vessels in the Nor th

Sea, English Channel, and Baltic Sea 0.5 5,000 Current U.S EPA nonroad diesel fuel standard, which does not include

marine vessels 0.1 1,000 Recently proposed by EU for marine vessels while berthed in EU ports

beginning in 2010 0.05 500 Current U.S EPA on-road diesel fuel standard

0.015 150 Current California on-road diesel fuel standard

0.0015 15 U.S EPA on-road and California on-road and off-road diesel planned for

mid-2006

Sources: Draft Regulator y Suppor t Document: Control of Emissions From Compression-Ignition Marine Diesel

Engines at or Above 30 Liters per Cylinder, Office of Transpor tation and Air Quality, U.S EPA, April 2002,

available at europa.eu.int/comm/environment/air/transpor t.htm#3; and EU Directive 99/32/EC, available at www.dieselnet.com/standards/fuels/.

S U L F U R C O N T E N T

Other cleaner-burning fuels that may be used for ferries, harbor craft, and other

non-oceangoing vessels include emulsified diesel, biodiesel, compressed natural gas

(CNG), or liquefied natural gas (LNG) These are potential options that can result in

significant reductions in NOxand PM emissions

Prior to regulation, a transition to cleaner marine fuels can be facilitated through

the use of incentive programs, including harbor fees or taxes that favor ships using

cleaner fuels (see “Sweden Harbor Fees Deter Dirty Ships,” page 32) In the absence

of mandated emission control areas, incentive programs would have more success if

implemented nationally or at least regionally

fuel are SOx, NOx, and PM Except for SOx, the emission reduction value of

lower-sulfur fuel is highly variable and depends greatly on the make, age, and quality

of maintenance on the engine, the duty cycle, and many more factors

The amount of sulfur in ship emissions is equivalent to the amount of sulfur in the

fuel Therefore, the amount of SOxthat will be reduced with use of the lower-sulfur

diesel is a direct function of the level of sulfur reduced Typically, however, a reduction

from standard marine fuel with 2.7 percent sulfur content to a fuel with 0.3 percent

sulfur content will yield approximately a 90 percent reduction in SOxemissions.18

The cleaner fuel will affect PM emissions, both directly and indirectly Because

both SOxand NOxcontribute to PM formation, reductions in these emissions also

reduce particulate levels PM is also reduced directly by the cleaner fuel

According to the EPA, a switch of all vessel operations within 175 nautical miles

of the U.S coast would result in significant reductions in PM and SOxemissions.19

Table 2-5 shows that PM and SOxcan be reduced dramatically by changing to

lower-sulfur diesel in marine engines

NOxreductions are more difficult to estimate A reduction of approximately

10 percent may be realized when a ship uses a distillate fuel instead of heavy fuel

oil.20Further NOxreductions may be achieved when utilizing CARB on-road diesel

due to lower aromatics, but these emission reductions have not been widely

demon-strated in practice.21

typically cost 50 percent more.22As with on-road applications, the price paid for

marine fuel will fluctuate with the market and the purchase volume

Strategies to Clean Up U.S Ports

reduced dramatically

by changing to lower-sulfur diesel

in marine engines.

TABLE 2-5

Pollutants Reduced by Lower Sulfur Content Marine Fuels

Source: Office of Transpor tation and Air Quality, U.S EPA, “Draft Regulator y Suppor t Document: Control of Emissions

From Compression-Ignition Marine Diesel Engines at or Above 30 Liters per Cylinder,” April 2002.

Note: Reductions are as compared to 27,000 ppm or 2.7 percent sulfur content.

SCX, Inc., a ferry manufacturer, successfully completed a demonstration project izing 15 ppm sulfur diesel in a ferryboat at the Port of Los Angeles British Petroleum’sECD-1 fuel was used for the project, and the success encouraged British Petroleum

util-to change its specifications util-to commit util-to the IMO marine fuel requirement of a mum 60-degree Celsius flashpoint and recruit a local distributor to supply the fuelwithin the port.23,24The cost of the ECD-1 fuel will be nearly twice that of bunker fuel

United States and because costs are likely to vary significantly, cost-effectivenesscannot be accurately estimated

In addition to the SCX, Inc demonstration project and manyothers like it, Samsung Heavy Industries, a major cargo shipmanufacturer, has designed one of its newest ships, the Orient Overseas ContainerLine (OOCL) Long Beach, to operate on lower-sulfur fuel (although it is not doing

so at the moment) OOCL plans to acquire a few more ships in this class, capable ofcarrying more than 8,000 containers, and then operate them at the Port of Long Beach.Water taxis in Newport, Rhode Island, are running on 100 percent biodiesel, as does

a larger boat at Channel Islands National Park.25The Port of Helsinki uses lower-sulfurdiesel (30 ppm) in several marine vessels Helsinki has also proposed the use of cleanerfuels in marine vessels for its large new Vousaari Container Terminal Complex

As Table 2-3 indicates, a number of lower sulfur content fuelsare on the market Their availability should alleviate theconcerns about supply of lower-sulfur diesel fuel for marine vessels For example,because of California’s current on-road diesel fuel standards, today’s diesel usersshould be able to rely on the availability of 150 parts per million (ppm) sulfur contentfuel, and by mid-2006 diesel with 15 ppm sulfur content will be widely available.Furthermore, California’s 2003 proposed state implementation plan for air pollutionreduction includes provisions that would require the 15 ppm sulfur on-road dieselscheduled for availability in mid-2006 to also be available as marine fuel.26

Across the Atlantic, the European Union has made some headway in using lowersulfur content fuels Before Annex VI of MARPOL was officially ratified, the EuropeanUnion adopted a directive (E.U Directive 99/32/EC) to strengthen sulfur limits inmarine fuels so that member countries would comply in the meantime The directivewill impose a 1.5 percent (15,000 ppm) sulfur limit on all vessels that travel in theNorth Sea, the English Channel, and the Baltic Sea Additionally, it is being strength-ened to require all passenger vessels in regular service to or from any port in theEuropean Union to use fuel with a sulfur limit of 1.5 percent And finally, a 0.2 percent(2,000 ppm) and eventually a 0.1 percent (1,000 ppm) sulfur limit will be imposed onall inland water vessels and all ships while they are berthed in ports inside the Euro-pean Union (As we went to press, EU representatives came to political agreement aboutdropping the first 0.2 percent fuel sulfur requirement, but retaining the 0.1 percentfuel sulfur requirement starting in 2010 For more details, see Appendix D.)

DISCUSSION

E X A M P L E S